In spite of the considerable weight that Pope Francis near-daily adds to the Cross that is born by faithful Catholics, we can at least be thankful for his plainspokenness in revealing the nefarious agenda of the ecclesial subversives who seek to remake the Church in their own image and likeness from within.
As I have stated in the past, no longer, apparently, do the revolutionaries feel compelled to move about in the shadows; rather, all indications are that they, and the Bishop of Rome who leads them, believe that the scales have been sufficiently tipped in their favor among the people-in-the-pews (that which they falsely portray as the sensus fidelium) that the time is nigh to complete the operation, begun in earnest in 1958, in the plain light of day.
As such, Pope Francis comfortably and without hesitation serves as both the “defendant” accused by a faithful remnant of mutiny against Christ the King, and “star witness for the prosecution” thanks to his habit of spilling the neo-modernist beans without ever being called to the stand.
In the present case, I wish to thank the Holy Father for putting so clearly on display the logical consequences that arise from treating the doctrine of the Faith, as the modernists do, as if it were a lump of clay to be molded according to the whims of progressive generations; that slippery slope that leads from secret movements inspired by quiet claims of good intentions to a day when the sculptors themselves will broadcast for all to hear, without any hint of shame, their sins against God and man.
This brings me to a homily delivered by Pope Francis on April 4, 2014, in which he said of an unnamed “prophet indeed”:
“Many thinkers in the Church were persecuted, as well … He was summoned in short order, his books were placed on the Index … Time has passed, and today he is Blessed. How is it, though, that he, who yesterday was a heretic, is today a Blessed of the Church? It is because yesterday, those who had power wanted to silence him because they did not like what he was saying. Today the Church, who, thanks be to God knows to repent, says, ‘No, this man is good!’ Moreover, he is on the way to sainthood: He is a Blessed.”
Of whom does Pope Francis speak?
Well, I suppose one would have to ask him to be entirely certain, and though I intend to offer my own educated guess as to whom he was speaking, the sad truth is, it doesn’t really matter.
Pay very close attention to what the Holy Father is saying!
He is shining a light on the sheer hubris of the revolutionary hierarchs vis-à-vis their willingness to perpetrate calumny against the faithful churchmen of previous generations, all in an attempt to justify whatever novelties happen to delight their senses en route to a church of their own making.
Now, let’s take a closer look at the shameful descent that is coming into focus under Pope Francis.
Prior to Vatican II, censured theologians often publicly accepted the constraints placed upon their work by ecclesial authorities while continuing to develop their particular lines of thought behind the scenes; e.g., in theological institutes and journals, some with subversive intent, others in humility.
Moving ahead to time of Vatican II, certain theologians among those previously censured, like John Courtney Murray, were invited to serve as periti, or theological experts, to advise the Council Fathers.
In the case of Murray, he managed to succeed in having his novelties concerning religious liberty and Church-State relations enshrined in the conciliar text, and he did so by asserting, as do the majority of his defenders even today, that the position of those who had censured him relied upon an earlier teaching (articulated most clearly by Pope Leo XIII) that, although not incorrect in itself, was situated within an “historical problematic” such that changing circumstances had rendered acceptable that which was once deemed inconceivable.
Let’s fast-forward now to the man of whom Pope Francis spoke in his homily.
I suspect that he was speaking of the Founder of the “Rosminians,” or the Institute of Charity, Fr. Antonio Rosmini, a cleric whose writings were posthumously condemned by decree of the Holy Office, and confirmed by Pope Leo XIII, in 1887.
After years of pressure asserted on the Holy See by the Rosminians in order to promote the canonization cause of their Founder, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger overturned the condemnation in 2001, saying in part:
“This is so because the meaning of the propositions, as understood and condemned by the Decree, does not belong to the authentic position of Rosmini, but to conclusions that may possibly have been drawn from the reading of his works.”
This action removed the obstacle from Rosmini’s cause, opening the way for him to be beatified six years later by the same former Cardinal Prefect of the CDF, Pope Benedict XVI.
If time permits, I will have more to say next week on the Rosmini situation relative to the scheduled canonizations of April 27th, but for now one notes already the progressively more negative view of the faithful Roman Pontiff Leo XIII being put forth by the post-conciliar regime.
As it relates to John Courtney Murray, Pope Leo XIII wasn’t necessarily incorrect; rather, he was simply addressing a particular situation that no long exists. Now, don’t get me wrong, this proposition is patently false, but such is the argument of Murray’s defenders.
In the case of Rosmini, we see Cardinal Ratzinger claiming that a regrettable mistake had been made in attributing to the condemned writings a meaning that isn’t really there.
In other words, Pope Leo XIII, he who once offered true teachings that were somehow time bound as it relates to religious liberty, had thus been downgraded by Cardinal Ratzinger to being just plain stupid.
You see, according the future Benedict the Abdicator, the poor Holy Father Leo XIII simply lacked the theological insight necessary to understand what Rosmini was actually saying!
If you’re disgusted already, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Now we come to Pope Francis, the Generalissimo of the revolution who sees no need whatsoever to pull any punches as it concerns his animosity for tradition and those who defend it.
According to his view, Leo XIII, who articulated the doctrine of the Faith so clearly, is not simply guilty of being stupid; rather, he is guilty of “persecuting” a “prophet” and future saint! The Church, therefore, must “repent” on his behalf!
It is not enough for Francis to assume good will on his predecessor’s part; no! For him, it is plain enough that his predecessor “had power” and “wanted to silence” the poor condemned prophet; not because the Pontiff felt duty bound to defend the doctrine of the Faith, but because he “did not like what he was saying.”
So, in the course of just fifty years according to the view of the neo-modernist Captains of Newchurch, the legacy of Pope Leo XIII has deteriorated considerably from that of a teacher in a previous age, to an idiot, to a persecutor of saints.
I can well imagine the neo-con army of wannabe Swiss Guards crying foul since Francis didn’t bother to name the “prophet” of whom he spoke, much less Pope Leo XIII, but in truth it matters little if in fact he was not speaking of Rosmini, in which case I would challenge them to suggest an alternative.
In any event, looking at this pathetic situation through Catholic eyes, one cannot fail to shudder at the awareness of just how far we have fallen when the Roman Pontiff does not hesitate to commit the sin of calumny against the faithful men who defended the Faith so well in previous generations, even in the context of a homily.
God help him, and God help us.
dear Mr. V.,
I know——as you say, “even in the context of a homily” – a point which, in my view, is beyond hideous.
Thank you for this Mr. V.,–once again, a necessary treatise.
Archbishop Lefebvre, humble obscure missionary shepherd, ora pro nobis.
Louie writes: “Prior to Vatican II, censured theologians often publicly accepted the constraints placed upon their work by ecclesial authorities while continuing to develop their particular lines of thought behind the scenes; e.g., in theological institutes and journals, some with subversive intent….”
In the following extract from his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus), Pope Benedict XV (“fifteenth”) bears witness to the existence of “subversive intent” in the Church of 1920 – and with particular reference to the teaching of Leo XIII.
Referring to “the absolute immunity of Scripture from error”, Benedict writes (emphasis added):
18. But although these words of our predecessor [Leo XIII] leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church – nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning – who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.”
Note also the rejection by Pope Benedict XV (“fifteenth”) of the “son of the Church card”!
On reading the original homily I could not help but substitute “Friars of the Immaculate” for the unnamed “prophet”. Could Francis not be seen to be condeming himself here, necessitating a future pope’s “repentance” for his actions in this sad affair?
It is all very simple. Pre-Vatican ll Church miserable and bad and power hungry without luv and without mercy. Just [plain stupid and arrogant.
NewChurch over flowing with luv and mercy and understanding and compassionate. Did I forget humble. And so very wise.
Therefore anyone who in times past advocated today’s new religion, in opposition to the true faith and teaching, is therefore ipso facto “blessed” and a veritable “saint”.
And away we go….!
Does anyone know if Michael Voris has any change of mind about the Bishop of Rome? Does he still think that the Bishop cannot be criticized?
Also, I noticed that CMTV permanent spot at the top of the righthand column of PEWsitter is no longer there. Are there any implications that can be drawn for that?
“the Bishop of Rome who leads them, believe that the scales have been sufficiently tipped in their favor among the people-in-the-pews (that which they falsely portray as the sensus fidelium)” – unfortunately I believe the scales have been sufficiently tipped as well. – someone in the last post commented on vocalising against Christ’s enemies as being ‘spiritually dangerous’. This is incredible. What I see is a majority of Catholics who are willing to join the ‘crucify Him’ crowd without a wit of conscience because their favourite ‘pope’ is doing so.
So the rehabilitation of the heretics continues and the demonizing of the faithful continues unabated.
the war against Truth is poisoning the entire nominal-catholic entity. Frankie has taken the VII ball (spirit) and is scoring goals for the enemies of Christ on a daily basis. And we who notice this and are appalled ‘vocally’, are given the hell-finger. Well – know your enemies, people. If you don’t know your enemies you certainly won’t be praying for them.
p.s. well said, justathought.
Your argument here can only logically lead to sedevacantism or Catholic-style protestantism. Don’t you see this? If Pope Francis can be wrong, then so can Pope Leo XIII. If a Catholic can’t trust that Pope Francis is right now then he has no reason to believe Pope Leo was right in his condemnation of Rosmini then. We all end up judging the popes according to our own definition of “tradition”.
So what’s your solution, Ganganelli? Both popes are right?
Ganganelli, I just can’t resist, but you don’t know the meaning of the word “Tradition”!!!!
How can it be tradition to pray in intereligious gatherings together, as Pope Francis and the Vatican II Popes have done and even complementing the members of false religions, such as animists and Buddhists?!! How can it be tradition to ignore liturgical rubrics and wash women’s and Muslims’ feet in direct violation of those rubrics? How can it be tradition to say Mary’s thoughts as she saw Our Lord’s Way of the Cross were those of doubts and even thinking God lied to her?!!!!!
The a-historicity of Catholics is spiritually dangerous (thanks for that term, treefrog – it’s quite helpful). Ignorance is spiritually dangerous because ignorance can be exploited. It’s up to each of us to decide whether or not to decide whether or not we can be bothered for the sake of Truth (Our Lord), whether Frankie is fully knowledgeable in his wanton destruction of the Faith.
“Today the Church, who, thanks be to God knows to repent, says, ‘No, this man is good!’” So says Frankie in contradiction to his illustrious predecessor whom 8 succeeding Popes did not find it necessary to contradict.
I might add, Frankie – who are you to judge whether or not this old heretic’s works, let alone the man, is now good or still bad as Leo XIII determined? You can’t have it both ways. If one gives oneself the permission to judge that which is good, that which is bad must also be judged. I can see as each month of this pontificate goes by, the ‘faithful’ sinking into oil slip of relativism, modernism and all its heresies – in short Frankisism – the most hard boiled vii-ist on the throne yet – made in image of the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II more or less.
QuoVadisPetre proves my point. Let’s say QVP lived during the reign of Pope Pius XI. How many things could QVP accuse Pope Pius XI of doing that could be perceived as “untraditional”. I’ll list just a few:
He spoke highly of non-Catholics. He approved the Malines Conversations between Cardinal Mercier and the Anglicans. He negotiated with the atheistic government of Mexico and told the Cristeros to lay down their arms. He excommunicated the “traditionalist” Royalists in France. In the liturgy, he was the first to approve “dialogue” masses where the people gave the responses novus ordo style.
The point is that if you’re looking to pick nits with Christ’s Holy Vicars, you’ll always have plenty of ammunition.
A few words from that old ignoramous, Pope Leo XIII:
” here, indeed, is a duty which the Church [Unity], faithful to the Divine Mission entrusted to her, has never neglected. What has been the object of her labors for more than nineteen centuries? Is there any other work she has undertaken with greater zeal and constancy than that of bringing the nations of the earth to the Truth and Principles of Christianity? Today, as ever, by Our Authority, the Heralds of the Gospel constantly cross the seas to reach the farthest corners of the earth; and We Pray God daily that in His goodness He may deign to increase the number of His Ministers who are really worthy of this Apostolate, and who are ready to Sacrifice their convenience, their health, and their very life, if need be, in order to extend the frontiers of the Kingdom of Christ. – Do Thou, above all, O Savior and Father of mankind, Christ Jesus, hasten and do not delay to bring about what Thou didst once promise to do–that when lifted up from the earth Thou wouldst draw all things to Thyself. Come, then, at last, and manifest Thyself to the immense multitude of souls who have not felt, as yet, the ineffable Blessings which Thou hast earned for men with Thy Blood; rouse those who are sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death, that, enlightened by the rays of Thy Wisdom and Virtue, in Thee and by Thee “they may be made perfect in one.”
God help him? Not likely. God helps those who help themselves…as the old saying goes…..and Jorge couldn’t care less about helping himself. We pray for the wicked to come back to the fold, but we can never forget that we all have free will to do what we may, whether it be good or evil. Jorge is lost and will most likely remain lost. How many people pray for the souls of Hitler or Stalin? Exactly.
From your perspective, this does not lead one to sedevancantism and any such suggestion by you is incoherent. You yourself would have to recognize that Pope Leo XIII was wrong, but you apparently do not question that he was an actual pope. So, if you can hold that view, why can’t somebody else believe the most recent two popes were wrong on this, but they still both were popes?
Is it at least possible that, by “those who had power,” Francis is referring, not to Pope Leo XIII, but to members of the Congregation of the Holy Office, i.e. the individuals who actually pronounced judgment on the matter of the 40 propositions? Or is that something only a member of the “neo-con army of wannabe Swiss Guards” would ask?
Besides, this particular door swings both ways: are not the Lefebvrians also hoping that, one day, the Church will “repent”, return to its senses and recognize in Archbishop Lefebvre, who died under official excommunication, a true hero and defender of the faith? If the words of the Pope had been in reference to Lefebvre, traditionalists would be falling over themselves in praise of Francis. As it stands, one shows shock and dismay that doubt could be cast on a past pronouncement of the Holy Office. Yet that is precisely the position to which the dissenting faction is most committed. It seems to me, therefore, rather imprudent to criticize the Pope for granting the very thesis upon which a return to tradition depends.
We always need to keep the standard in front of us: Truth i.e. the Deposit of Faith. That will tell us who is good vs who is evil. Yes, I hope one day that Arch. Lefebvre is shown for the brave man he was for standing up against the Modernist revolution in the Church…just like St. Athanasius was hailed as a hero years after the Arianism heresy was defeated in the Church. The issue here isn’t “don’t go against previous Popes or the Church”, the issue is: it is calumny to go against Popes and the Church when they were FAITHFUL to the deposit of faith. To have a Modernist Pope use the tool of authentic repentance to promote heresy is where things go very wrong. God bless~
Well said, MMC. It is indeed calumny to go against Popes and the Church who were faithful to the deposit of faith. I think that this is the basic problem with Pope Francis’ view of the situation. And of course it isn’t a matter of one Pope’s opinion over another Pope’s opinion, which seems to be what Pope Francis is inferring (maybe I’m wrong about that) when he said that ‘those who had power wanted to silence him (presumably Rosmini) because they did not like what he was saying.’ Rather, it would make sense, from a truly Catholic perspective, that they did not like what he was saying because what Rosmini was saying just wasn’t, and still isn’t, Catholic. But that’s how Modernists think,
Ganganelli, it would seem your understanding of Catholic authority is so poor you have absolutely no idea what sort of papal teachings are binding and authoritative and which are not.
As is made clear again and again by attitudes such as yours, sede vacantists and neo-Catholics share the same root error regarding papal authority: Both camps believe, more or less, that a Pope can never be wrong, and/or should never be challenged. The former camp thus concludes we currently don’t have a pope (given that he says and does so much that is so clearly wrong), and the latter camp is likely even worse off, not understanding the faith well enough to make virtually any distinctions whatever regarding authentic Catholicism.
When the modernists hijacked the council, and inserted their errors into the documents, the foundation was laid to discredit and subvert all of the 1962 years of Church teachings. A true newchurch was born. We now have the first newchurch Pope. It is no surprise that the events are proceeding as we now see. The previous three Popes since Paul VI have laid the foundation for him. We can but remain faithful to doctrine and tradition which we knowbto be true, and pray. Our era of St. Athanasius is begun in earnest.
Can you point out, Matthew, where these “40 people” were wrong? Not the then Cardinal Ratzinger did so, or Pope Francis either!
Ganganelli, you’re a master of deception, mixing half-truths with lies, as well as making arguments totally devoid of logic! Pope Pius XI at first indeed initially approved of the Maline Conferences, but then with Mortalium Animos, went totally away from that!
As for the Cristeros, that is a matter of policy, NOT things connected with DOCTRINE. Same goes for Actione Francaise and “dialogue” Masses!
Ganganelli, you’re really indeed intent on making yourself look as foolish as possible!
I made a slight mistake concerning Pius XI. He indeed approved the Maline Conferences. Quoting Wikipedia, “However, these enterprises were firmly aimed at actually reuniting with the Roman Catholic Church other Christians who basically agreed with Catholic doctrine, bringing them back under Papal authority. To the broad pan-Protestant ecumenical movement he took a more negative attitude.” That was with Mortalium Animos. So again, faliure of logical arguments on your part, Ganganelli. I said it earlier: you have no logical arguments to make, only non sequiturs. This latest post of yours proves it!
Not 40 people, 40 propositions. I invite you to read up on the history of the Rosmini case: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3939&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=1309910 Also, please read Card. Ratzinger’s 2001 note regarding Rosmini: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010701_rosmini_en.html The situation was a good deal more nuanced than how it’s being portrayed here. Regardless, it’s hardly the case that Pope Francis is calumniating Pope Leo XIII. Such a claim amounts to little more than tabloid sensationalism.
Basically, the then Cardinal Ratzinger said in that document that Leo XIII was an ignoramus in his judgment of Rosmini, even though Rosmini obediently complied with the decision! Rather, I invite you to read James Larson’s article on this: http://christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_feb04_bonus.html
BTW, I would rather avoid Catholic Culture, at least when it gives its own judgments concerning events in the past; being a neo-Catholic organization, I am quite sure it is favorable to Ratzinger and Rosmini.